Alexander v. The City of New York

Background

Zion Alexander filed this action without a lawyer, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged federal constitutional violations and claims under state law. He seeks money damages and injunctive relief. At the time of the order, he was held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. He originally filed the action in the Eastern District of New York, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York.

Alexander named the City of New York; “NYC Health & Hospitals/Correctional Health Services (Bellevue Hospital),” which the court construed as NYC Health + Hospitals; “Jhon Doe (Psy. D) #1” and “Jhon Doe (Psy. D) #2,” which the court construed as unidentified psychiatrists or physicians employed by NYC Health + Hospitals at Bellevue; and Correction Officer DeJesus. The court had previously granted Alexander permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Adding Defendants Under Rule 21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 permits a court to add or remove a party when appropriate. Although Alexander did not list “Adam” or Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson as defendants in the caption, the court found that his allegations appeared to assert claims against them. Considering Alexander’s status as a person without a lawyer and his allegations concerning these individuals, the court treated the complaint as naming them as defendants.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to add “Adam” and Correction Officers Jackson and Thompson as defendants under Rule 21. The order stated that this addition was without prejudice to any defenses those individuals might assert.

Service of the Existing Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City of New York and Correction Officers DeJesus, Jackson, and Thompson waive service of summonses. The order identifies DeJesus as having been assigned as Alexander’s suicide-watch officer between December 2 and 4, 2024, Jackson as having been assigned in that role on December 6, 2024, and Thompson as having been present during Jackson’s assignment on December 6, 2024.

The court directed service of the complaint and summons on NYC Health + Hospitals. Because Alexander was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court instructed the Clerk to issue the summons, complete the required service form, and deliver the necessary papers to the United States Marshals Service. The court extended the service deadline for NYC Health + Hospitals until 90 days after a summons is issued and stated that Alexander should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

Identifying Unnamed Defendants

The court found that Alexander had provided enough information for NYC Health + Hospitals to identify “Adam” and the two unidentified Bellevue physicians. The order describes “Adam” as a health-care provider assigned to the George R. Vierno Center’s “mini clinic” between December 2 and 4, 2024. It describes the other two individuals as physicians who assessed or examined Alexander when he arrived at Bellevue on November 27, 2024.

The court ordered counsel for NYC Health + Hospitals to provide the full identities and service addresses of these three individuals to Alexander and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Alexander must file an amended complaint naming them and giving their service addresses. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another service order.

Disposition and Effect

This was an order concerning adding parties, identifying unnamed defendants, and serving the complaint. The court directed the addition of three defendants, requested waiver of service from the City and three correction officers, and directed service on NYC Health + Hospitals. It did not decide the merits of Alexander’s constitutional or state-law claims. The court also instructed Alexander to notify the Clerk in writing of any address change and warned that failure to maintain a current address could result in dismissal of the action.